The Hump Airlift. A better route to reduce losses?


The wonderful C-54.
1600802741668.png
1600802774115.png
The less admired but still useful C-87.

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article describing the WW2 airlift carrying supplies and personnel from India to China. "The Hump." It's worth taking note of the astonishingly extremely high casualty rate for what was a (mostly)non-combat operation. The vast majority of aircrew and aircraft losses were not directly due to enemy action but were caused chiefly by the atrocious weather frequently encountered over the Himalayas and their foothills though poor training and maintenance also played a role.

There might have not been very much that could have been done about this in 1942 as the only airplanes available for the airlift in any numbers were the C-47. So consequently the shortest possible air route had to be used so the C-47 could carry a useful load. This was the route from the airfields in Assam, British India to Kunming, China. About 520 to 540 air miles depending on which airfield was the flight was departing from. A C-47 could carry about 2 tons for this distance.

The major problem was the route from immediately after take off until landing at Kunming was over the Himalayan foothills which produce the dangerous weather conditions as described in the Wikipedia article. The threat of interception by Japanese fighters would compel flight crews to detour further Northward which brought them into higher elevations and worse flying conditions. This situation produced the heavy losses that were suffered by the Hump operation through 1943 and most of 1944 until an adequate Allied fighter escort was established that permitted the use of a more Southerly route with less severe weather conditions.

In 1943 two longer range aircraft types were beginning to become available to the U.S. Air Transport Command that was operating the airlift. The 4 engined C-54 and C-87 transports. These planes had the capability of carrying heavier loads longer distances then the C-47s that had been used by the ATC up to that time. But these new planes were still just as vulnerable to the terrible weather and flying conditions encountered in Northern Burma over the foothills of the Himalayas. The C-87 even more so. Nevertheless the ATC persisted in operating the new longer ranged planes from the same airfields in Assam that hat been built for the shorter ranged ranged C-47.

I think a safer route should have been chosen that the longer ranged planes could have utilized. In 1942 the British and Commonwealth forces had constructed a large airfield at Chittagong. Chittagong being a port city on the Bay of Bengal. Further enlargement to produce a complex of airfields could have been carried out through early 1943 with American assistance. These airfields should have served as the new departure point for the airlift to Kunming.

From Chittagong to Kunming is about 720 airmiles. Which would add about 200 more miles then the Assam airfields to Kunming distance. This would likely eliminate the C-47 for the practical reason that while it could fly the longer route it's payload would be reduced. Anyhow there were plenty of other uses that could be found for the C47s in the CBI. The C-54s could fly this distance with an 8 to possibly as much as 10 ton load. The C-87 about 6 tons. Both planes having a flight time of about 4 hours depending on the winds aloft.

The main reason for selecting this route is I think it would've greatly reduced the loss rate due to the bad weather encountered over the Himalayas. The elevations for the entire route doesn't reach 7000 feet until approaching the mountain range about 60 miles Southwest of Kunming. Not the 12000 to 14000 foot peaks along the high hump route.

As this route takes the transport planes over central Burma for most of its length they would be exposed to a much greater risk of interception by the IJAAF. Unless they restrict operations to only flying at night or during heavy cloud cover (Monsoon) conditions. The Japanese would be very unlikely to achieve interceptions at night or in cloud with the day-fighter squadrons that operated in Burma in 1943 and 1944.

As long as the Allied flight crews are at least adequately trained in instrument flying then operating at night is no different then flying in cloud. Either way there are no visual references. This was often the case along the Assam to Kunming route anyway. One factor that must be considered is, especially for low time aircrews, it is much easier to take off at night then land at night. I would think the scheduling for flights from Chittagong to Kunming would need have the flights take off a few hours before dawn so as to arrive at Kunming to permit a day light landing.

This gives the aircrews the protection that night provides from the IJAAF fighters and allows the less hazardous daylight landing. How long flights could be scheduled to leave Chittagong as the morning approaches would depend on how far out from Kunming the Allied fighter umbrella could be extended. Eventually by late 1944 the entire length of the route could be patrolled extensively by the Allies. As mentioned daylight flights could still be flown if there is enough heavy cloud cloud cover along the route to prevent the transports from being spotted by the Japanese pilots.

One other advantage of operating the Hump Airlift from an airfield complex based at Chittagong is the Port Of Chittagong located a few miles from the location of the airfields. Cargo doesn't need to be shipped by train hundreds of miles from Calcutta to Assam as was done. From ship to plane is just a few miles at Chittagong.

I don't contend that this is a perfect solution to the difficulties faced by the ATC operating the Hump Airlift in OTL. But looking at the appalling casualty rate I believe with the benefit of hindsight that something different should have been done. I wonder if anybody involved with the Airlift back then had considered this or other options.

1600805452814.png

Belligerents
Strength
Casualties and losses
DateApril 1942 – November 1945
LocationAssam, India, to Kunming, China
ResultAllied victory
23px-Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg.png
China
23px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png
United Kingdom
23px-Flag_of_the_United_States_%281912-1959%29.svg.png
United States
22px-Flag_of_Japan_%281870%E2%80%931999%29.svg.png
Japan
  • 27 aircraft; 1,100 men (May 1942)
  • 640 aircraft; 34,000 military (31 July 1945)[1]
  • 594 aircraft lost, missing, or written off
  • 1,659 personnel killed or missing
 
Last edited:
I guess my first question is the feasibility of extending NAVAIDs along the Route?

Non Directional Beacon navigation was common prewar. A chain of beacons would enable night/inclement weather navigation. They’d be vulnerable to Japanese air strikes, but that also forces the Japanese into the same operating conditions. There’s probably an offset or other coding system you could use to mitigate as well.
 
God I wish we could talk to my late Father who was an engineer and test pilot for Douglass Aircraft during World War II. He had survived cancer of the jaw as a teenager and the Air Corps wanted nothing to do with him. I am not sure that beacon systems were sophisticated enough to be of much use in Burma. The Germans tried them from Germany and Denmark during teh Blitz and teh British came up with countermeasures to throw the German bombers off course. The distances you are contemplating are a lot longer so I wonder how far they could have reached from Allied territory. I doubt that they could have set up beacons in Japanese held territory; or really anywhere without an electric grid. You also are still trying to supply an army by air which I don't think has ever been successful in the long term. Even if more planes made it you still are talking about moving relatively light loads. You could not, for example, load a tank into a C-54. Still you have a very interesting idea. I suspect the airfields could have been built relatively easily.
 
Could the KMT be supplied through Russia into Western China?

I'm assuming that the Soviets wouldn't want that but they could probably be strong armed into it.

Logistically it'd make sense since a lot of lend lease is already going through Siberia. I'm assuming that the weather would be easier to fly through as well.
 
I guess my first question is the feasibility of extending NAVAIDs along the Route?

Non Directional Beacon navigation was common prewar. A chain of beacons would enable night/inclement weather navigation. They’d be vulnerable to Japanese air strikes, but that also forces the Japanese into the same operating conditions. There’s probably an offset or other coding system you could use to mitigate as well.


If you mean the OTL Assam to Kunming route it overflew terrain so rough and remote that it was impracticable to establish NDBs along the route. And regarding my suggested Chittagong to Kunming route most of it was over Japanese occupied territory.

However the solution to both difficulties is the same. Using dead reckoning navigation the problem that arises is with out any navigational references along the route you can't know how far off course the inevitable winds are pushing you. If you can see the stars or the Sun then celestial navigation can mitigate that if you have a crew member who knows how to take a Sun or star shot. Very likely you won't.

The solution is to establish a line of non-direction beacons centered at both the departure areas and Kunming strung along a line perpendicular to the flight path routes. If there are 5 LF NDBs then if a plane is off course but arrives within about a hundred miles either side of the airfield the radio-navigator will detect at least one of the NDB signals. This "catch net" maybe more, perhaps 150 miles each side at night. Because each NDB in the line has it's own Morse code identifier the navigator will know which side of the airfield they are off course from so they can turn correctly and follow the NDB signals directly to the field.

Possible failures. If the NDBs aren't serviced and maintained adequately they could be out of service too often to be reliable. Thunderstorm radio static can interfere with the radio reception of the NDB signals. And with the worst possible crosswinds it's possible a plane could be blown so far off course the flight crew miss the outer edge of the line of NDB reception range. I think this would be less likely on the Chittagong to Kunming route as it lies farther away from the ferocious mountain winds of the Himalayas for most of that route.

Not perfect but that's the best available until LORAN starts getting fitted into long range aircraft in 1945. And those first LORAN sets weren't going to the CBI.
 
Last edited:
@Bob in Pittsburgh

They were attempting to supply China by air in some of the most dangerous flying conditions anywhere. It was barely possible using the equipment and crews available at the time. Hence the atrocious accident rate. It took about 2 years before the ATC had worked out some of the worst difficulties. Looking at the Hump Airlift with the benefit of hindsight I have been speculating on how it could have been run with far fewer crashes and losses almost right from the beginning.

Your point about powering radio navigation aids is a good one. At the time all they had was Low Frequency Non-Directional Beacons. Having a electrical supply from a town would have been a bonus. But these radio aids could be powered by generators too. They needed to be well sited, maintained and supplied to operate reliably.
 
Last edited:
"In 1943 the bKa' Shag issued a proclamation forbidding American overflight of Tibetan territory by planes carrying supplies intended to aid China in its fight against the Japanese Imperial Army. This necessitated more dangerous flights over a non-Tibetan region referred to as 'the Hump' by pilots which resulted in a number of crashes and several casualties that could have been prevented if they had been able to take the more direct Tibet route." https://books.google.com/books?id=wksCKIivSNUC&pg=PA716 It is
not clear to me, though, why the more dangerous "Hump" route should have been taken instead of Tibet, regardless of the objections of Tibetan leaders, given that the US did not recognize Tibet as independent--unless the Tibetans had anti-aircraft guns. Does anyone know if they did? (FWIW, not long before the Chinese Communist invasion, "the government of India, however, refused to sell the mortars and anti-aircraft guns which Tibet had requested." https://books.google.com/books?id=eBL0DqFRw7YC&pg=PT113 That would seem to imply that in the late 1940's the Tibetans did not have anti-aircraft guns or at least thought they did not have enough.)
 
Last edited:
I was looking at NDBs specifically to enable operations as a supplement or replacement for celestial nav. I know USAAC/USAAF navigators we’re trained to do so and aircraft were equipped for it. However, I’m not sure how much confidence/experience a wartime trained nav would have in what are even today some of the most demanding flying conditions in the world.
 
Could the KMT be supplied through Russia into Western China?

I'm assuming that the Soviets wouldn't want that but they could probably be strong armed into it.

Logistically it'd make sense since a lot of lend lease is already going through Siberia. I'm assuming that the weather would be easier to fly through as well.

I don't think Stalin could have been persuaded or pressured to agree to allowing China to be supplied through Soviet territory. Especially in 1943. The Soviet Union had its hands full dealing with the Germans. Stalin would not have wanted any trouble with the Japanese at that time.
 
"In 1943 the bKa' Shag issued a proclamation forbidding American overflight of Tibetan territory by planes carrying supplies intended to aid China in its fight against the Japanese Imperial Army. This necessitated more dangerous flights over a non-Tibetan region referred to as 'the Hump' by pilots which resulted in a number of crashes and several casualties that could have been prevented if they had been able to take the more direct Tibet route." https://books.google.com/books?id=wksCKIivSNUC&pg=PA716 It is
not clear to me, though, why the more dangerous "Hump" route should have been taken instead of Tibet, regardless of the objections of Tibetan leaders, given that the US did not recognize Tibet as independent--unless the Tibetans had anti-aircraft guns. Does anyone know if they did? (FWIW, not long before the Chinese Communist invasion, "the government of India, however, refused to sell the mortars and anti-aircraft guns which Tibet had requested." https://books.google.com/books?id=eBL0DqFRw7YC&pg=PT113 That would seem to imply that in the late 1940's the Tibetans did not have anti-aircraft guns or at least thought they did not have enough.)

I would think Tibet's stance against any of the combatants over flying their territory would not be a factor for the managing of the Hump Airlift. The routes emanating from Assam don't approach Tibetan airspace. Unless the pilots were hopelessly lost and off course. In that case Tibetan AAA would have been the least of their worries.
 
Here is a firsthand account of what is was like flying the Hump in WW2. It was a remarkably dangerous undertaking.


 
I would think Tibet's stance against any of the combatants over flying their territory would not be a factor for the managing of the Hump Airlift. The routes emanating from Assam don't approach Tibetan airspace. Unless the pilots were hopelessly lost and off course. In that case Tibetan AAA would have been the least of their worries.

The fact that the Assam route and the Tibet route were fairly distant from each other doesn't necessarily mean that one couldn't be used as a substitute for the other.
 

marathag

Banned
overlooked
1601151112738.png


Curtiss C-46 Commando
General characteristics

  • Crew: 4 or 5
  • Capacity:
    • 40 troops or
    • 30 stretcher patients or
    • 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) cargo[62]
  • Length: 76 ft 4 in (23.27 m)
  • Wingspan: 108 ft 0 in (32.92 m)
  • Height: 21 ft 9 in (6.63 m)
  • Wing area: 1,360 sq ft (126 m2)
  • Airfoil: root: NACA 23017; tip: NACA 4410.5[63]
  • Empty weight: 30,669 lb (13,911 kg) [N 2][61]
  • Gross weight: 45,000 lb (20,412 kg) [N 3]
  • Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-51 Double Wasp 18-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) each
  • Propellers: 4-bladed Curtiss Electric constant-speed propellers
Performance

  • Maximum speed: 270 mph (430 km/h, 230 kn) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
  • Cruise speed: 173 mph (278 km/h, 150 kn)
  • Range: 3,150 mi (5,070 km, 2,740 nmi) at 173 mph (150 kn; 278 km/h) ; 1,000 mi (870 nmi; 1,600 km) at 237 mph (206 kn; 381 km/h)
  • Service ceiling: 24,500 ft (7,500 m)
  • Time to altitude: 10,000 ft (3,000 m) in 17 minutes 24 secon

So 15,000 pound payload, one ton more than the C-47, but 3150 mile range to the C-47 with 1600mile, and 13 mph faster cruise with the Curtiss

Downsides: leaky fuel system, that also plagued the C-87. Not fixed till postwar
 
It is not clear to me, though, why the more dangerous "Hump" route should have been taken instead of Tibet, regardless of the objections of Tibetan leaders, given that the US did not recognize Tibet as independent–unless the Tibetans had anti-aircraft guns.
Perhaps due to Britain's stance on Tibet since the operation was based in India?


Could the KMT be supplied through Russia into Western China?
IIRC the Soviets received roughly half of all their Lend Lease supplies via Vladivostok thanks to the USSR and Empire of Japan not being at war. If Russia allowed supplies to the KMT to transit their territory it would push things much closer to war which they really wouldn't want until the European theatre had been settled.
 
overlooked
View attachment 586202

Curtiss C-46 Commando

Yes, I should have included the Curtiss Commando too. It played a large role in the Hump airlift. And same as the C-54 and C-87 the C-46 flight operations would have benefitted from the less hazardous flying conditions along the Chittagong to Kunming route I have suggested here. And, unlike the C-47 the C-46, same as the 4 engined transports had the range to fly the longer route and still carry a large amount of cargo.
 
The Lend-Lease supplies that went througgh Siberia were transferred to Soviet control while in the U.S. (including Alaska) the ships and aircraft used were all 'owned' by and operated by Soviet crews. If they had carried supplies destined to anywhere but the USSR it would have been a violation of Soviet neutrality.

One of the problems with a longer route was that every additional mile that they flew reduced the amount of cargo that could be carried. Even if the aircraft could fly a longer route doing so reduced the amount of cargo that could be carried. They couldn't time the flights to only cross Japanese territory at night because it was an around the clock operation. Not as intense as the Berlin airlift but a constant cycle of flights all day and night.
 
Would a lower loss rate in aircraft and crew offset the net cargo reduction?
I'm not sure there would be a lower loss rate. Flying over enemy territory would probably increase losses due to enemy action. It would require increased flights of escort or corridor patrol missions which would divert aircraft and crews from other missions. This would also require additional flights for the fuel and supplies to support the escorts.

General William Tunner who commanded the Hump operation and later the Berlin Airlift was very much an analytical 'numbers guy'. It has been years since I read his book about the operation but he pushed to get C-54s not for the increased range but for the additional load capacity. The Commanders in China fought against it feeling that the fuel required would mean less for them. He countered this by showing how the C-54 could not only carry its own round trip fuel but actually off load some in China. The problem was there were not enough C-54s to meet all the demands for long range transports.
 

marathag

Banned
Another way would be to have Lockheed get top priority for the L-049, the C-69, that postwar would be known as the Constellation

General characteristics L-049

  • Crew: 4 Pilots and 2 to 4 Flight Attendants
  • Capacity: 60–81 Passengers
  • Length: 95 ft 3 in (29.03 m)
  • Wingspan: 123 ft (37 m)
  • Height: 23 ft 8 in (7.21 m)
  • Wing area: 1,650 sq ft (153 m2)
  • Airfoil: root: NACA 23018; tip: NACA 4412[6]
  • Empty weight: 49,392 lb (22,404 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 86,250 lb (39,122 kg)
  • Powerplant: 4 × Wright R-3350-745C18BA-1 18-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, 2,200 hp (1,600 kW) each
  • Propellers: 3-bladed constant-speed fully-feathering propellers

Performance
  • Cruise speed: 313 mph (504 km/h, 272 kn)
  • Range: 3,995 mi (6,429 km, 3,472 nmi) with maximum fuel load, 2,290 mi (1,990 nmi; 3,685 km) with maximum payload
  • Service ceiling: 25,300 ft (7,700 m)
It would have similar problems with the R-3350 as the B-29 did at first.

It was pressurized, and the L149 was a version with larger fuel tankage and L-749 with an 18' longer fuselage that was fitted with R-2800 engines at first, and the R-3350 in production

General characteristics L-749
  • Crew: 6-8 (pilot, copilot, radio operator, engineer, and 2-4 flight attendants)
  • Capacity: 60-81 passengers
  • Length: 97 ft 4 in (29.67 m)
  • Wingspan: 123 ft (37 m)
  • Height: 22 ft 5 in (6.83 m)
  • Wing area: 1,650 sq ft (153 m2)
  • Aspect ratio: 9.17
  • Airfoil: root: NACA 23018; tip: NACA 4412[6]
  • Empty weight: 56,590 lb (25,669 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 107,000 lb (48,534 kg)
  • Powerplant: 4 × Wright R-3350-749C18BD-1 Duplex-Cyclone 18-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, 2,500 hp (1,900 kW) each
  • Propellers: 3-bladed constant-speed fully feathering propellers

Performance
  • Cruise speed: 345 mph (555 km/h, 300 kn)
  • Range: 4,995 mi (8,039 km, 4,341 nmi) maximum fuel 2,600 mi (2,259 nmi; 4,184 km) maximum payload
  • Service ceiling: 24,100 ft (7,300 m)
 
Last edited:
Top